http://www.ibcfrankfort.com/columns.htm

 

The June columns are pretty much an argument against the notion of a literal hades.

 

Just curious about comments. Hatz, I have a little better understanding of your hermenuetical (sp) background so I am curious to hear what you say, but I am really curious to see if anyone else, besides me can see any legitimacy in these propositions.

There is a literal place of eternal punishment (hell) just as there is a literal place of eternal life (heaven). To teach anything but this is absolute heresy.

There is a literal place of eternal punishment (hell) just as there is a literal place of eternal life (heaven). To teach anything but this is absolute heresy.

 

I think what Ace is suggesting is that hell is not the fire and brimstone place that cartoons make it out to be.

The judgment of God cannot contradict the love of God, but must be interpreted within the context of God's unconditional love for all people, the righteous and the wicked.

 

If God is picking and choosing who was going to suffer the wrath, than I would agree.

But we pick where we will spend eternity. I choose where LBBC will spend eternity.

 

Is this country wicked because we put people in prison for all of their life because of crimes THEY CHOSE to commit?

 

Why would God then be held as not compatible with a loving God because of choices that I make?

I think what Ace is suggesting is that hell is not the fire and brimstone place that cartoons make it out to be.

 

I agree 100%.

 

It is much, much worse. It is total separation from God for all of eternity.

And my understanding you are not going to be their with others parting but complete darkness and alone from others and from God.

But there are many Christians, like myself, who take the Bible seriously as a guide to faith, but we do not take it literally, accepting every statement as the Word of God.

 

This statement petrifies me.

 

How is there any absolute TRUTH if you don't. Why is what you get to pick and choose right and what I pick and choose wrong? How do you even decide that this statement is fine but this statement is not.

 

It seems that brings human (imperfect beings) too much power to decide what is God and what is not God.

 

I don't believe I have the ability to understand the complete picture of God and then the discernment to pick and choose what characteristics of God that I like and what I don't like.

 

I think the above statement is what has led to the mess that Christianity is in today of different groups of people wanting to believe what they wanted to believe rather than what Scripture says.

I agree 100%.

 

It is much, much worse. It is total separation from God for all of eternity.

And my understanding you are not going to be their with others parting but complete darkness and alone from others and from God.

 

Its the ultimate time out....

Or it could be a cleansing and redeeming fire like the coal that touched Isaiahs??? lips.

 

If everything that God does is "for the good" shouldn't something good come out of "judgment"???

 

FWIW, in the big picture of religion this eternal punishment is fairly new.

 

AND . . . when john (i think) talks about eternal life, we have a poor translation of the word eternal. It is more about our life now i.e. "to have life and to have it more abundantly."

 

But I was hoping I would get a response to the arguments put forward in the column. They are laid out fairly well. But my preacher would be ready to admit that "he could be wrong" but that this is where he is in his faith journey right now.

My trouble is that Queen is the ultimate cherry-picker. For example:

 

1. In several of the sermons he uses the phrase "most scholars accept . . ." on issues that are absolutely false. Most scholars do NOT accept that Matthew was an add/on writer. There are some who claim the latter portion of Mark are, but the "addition" scholarship on Matthew is far from being consensus; Queen tosses it out there like fact, I guess believing that his parishioners will accept it carte blanche with drool running down their faces;

 

2. There is no equanimity to his choice of adjective. If a passage says the word hell or judgment, Queen dismisses it out of hand saying it is "vindictive," and therefore contradictory to Jesus' teaching. Jesus pointing out there is an eternal judgment is not vindictive, it is fact, no matter how Queen chooses to describe it.

 

3. His conclusions are merely self-serving. Matthew has over 37 references to Hell, so he concludes that the writer of Matthew in the "Hell" parts is different from the Matthew in the "love" parts, and then says the writer "has an ax to grind." Mind you, he provides no textual support for that, he merely tosses a "scholars agree" in there and hopes you'll accept it. On the flip side, Acts doesn't mention the word Hell so the writer of Acts (Luke) is pure and accurately reporting the teaching of Jesus.

 

4. His scholarship is poor. He condemns or tries to spin the reference to Hell in Luke, but praises Acts, forgetting perhaps that Luke wrote both books.

 

If you are going to pretend to be authoritative, you need at a very minimum to be able to use scholarship and citation to textually support your argument, or it cannot even be called criticism. Queen's sermons are nothing more than fatuous drivel spouted as something to pass the time after the passing of the plate. Unfortunately, it appears that many will simply sit there, glassy-eyed, vigorously nodding their heads with the occasional "Amen."

Ace, do you believe in Satan?

Or it could be a cleansing and redeeming fire like the coal that touched Isaiahs??? lips.

 

If everything that God does is "for the good" shouldn't something good come out of "judgment"???

 

FWIW, in the big picture of religion this eternal punishment is fairly new.

 

AND . . . when john (i think) talks about eternal life, we have a poor translation of the word eternal. It is more about our life now i.e. "to have life and to have it more abundantly."

 

But I was hoping I would get a response to the arguments put forward in the column. They are laid out fairly well. But my preacher would be ready to admit that "he could be wrong" but that this is where he is in his faith journey right now.

 

Still reading.

Reading the sermon on Acts and Paul's story would seem to contradict and early claim.

 

If God is only a non-violent, loving, caring God, how does that fit in with Paul being struck blind for a time being? Is that loving and caring?

My trouble is that Queen is the ultimate cherry-picker. For example:

 

1. In several of the sermons he uses the phrase "most scholars accept . . ." on issues that are absolutely false. Most scholars do NOT accept that Matthew was an add/on writer. There are some who claim the latter portion of Mark are, but the "addition" scholarship on Matthew is far from being consensus; Queen tosses it out there like fact, I guess believing that his parishioners will accept it carte blanche with drool running down their faces;

 

2. There is no equanimity to his choice of adjective. If a passage says the word hell or judgment, Queen dismisses it out of hand saying it is "vindictive," and therefore contradictory to Jesus' teaching. Jesus pointing out there is an eternal judgment is not vindictive, it is fact, no matter how Queen chooses to describe it.

 

3. His conclusions are merely self-serving. Matthew has over 37 references to Hell, so he concludes that the writer of Matthew in the "Hell" parts is different from the Matthew in the "love" parts, and then says the writer "has an ax to grind." Mind you, he provides no textual support for that, he merely tosses a "scholars agree" in there and hopes you'll accept it. On the flip side, Acts doesn't mention the word Hell so the writer of Acts (Luke) is pure and accurately reporting the teaching of Jesus.

 

4. His scholarship is poor. He condemns or tries to spin the reference to Hell in Luke, but praises Acts, forgetting perhaps that Luke wrote both books.

 

If you are going to pretend to be authoritative, you need at a very minimum to be able to use scholarship and citation to textually support your argument, or it cannot even be called criticism. Queen's sermons are nothing more than fatuous drivel spouted as something to pass the time after the passing of the plate. Unfortunately, it appears that many will simply sit there, glassy-eyed, vigorously nodding their heads with the occasional "Amen."

 

I totally agree with these observations of the article's content. It is really frightening that men take such liberty with God's Word.

I totally agree with these observations of the article's content. It is really frightening that men take such liberty with God's Word.

 

It's called organized religion...and it's a billion dollar a year industry.

It's called organized religion...and it's a billion dollar a year industry.

 

Perhaps for those that don't believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God.